Subject: [tsvwg] AD Evaluation comments on draft-ietf-tsvwg-datagram-plpmtud-14

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 13:44:49 +0000

Hi,

I have done my AD review by going through the AD Review checklist and
looking at the changes since my WG LC review. Issues that I have found this
time are the following.

1. Missing Updates: So this documents respecifies how one perform PLPMTUD
for SCTP over different lower layers. Despite that only RFC 4960 is updated.
Looking at Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 I think there is a point of actually
updating also RFC 6951 and RFC 8261. Both have their own specifications for
Path MTU D and do not rely solely on either 4960 or RFC 4821. Thus, I think
it would be good to update also these documents. Or what is the authors and
WG's view on this? 

2. Can you please update the revision of the QUIC transport reference:

== Outdated reference: A later version (-25) exists of

     draft-ietf-quic-transport-20

Otherwise I believe this document ready for IETF last call. I put the
datatracker into revised ID needed based on 1. 

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

---

From: Michael Tuexen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 15:13:12 +0100

> On 17. Feb 2020, at 14:44, Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund=[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
>  
> I have done my AD review by going through the AD Review checklist and looking at the changes since my WG LC review. Issues that I have found this time are the following.
>  
> 1. Missing Updates: So this documents respecifies how one perform PLPMTUD for SCTP over different lower layers. Despite that only RFC 4960 is updated. Looking at Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 I think there is a point of actually updating also RFC 6951 and RFC 8261. Both have their own specifications for Path MTU D and do not rely solely on either 4960 or RFC 4821. Thus, I think it would be good to update also these documents. Or what is the authors and WG’s view on this? 
I agree, it makes sense to update 6951 and 8261, too. A change in the SCTP will also affect SCTP/UDP and SCTP/DTLS.

Best regards
Michael
> Otherwise I believe this document ready for IETF last call. I put the datatracker into revised ID needed based on 1.

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 13:40:27 +0000

Hi,

Lets give others a few days to react to this. If no one has protested by next
week, please submit an updated draft that includes the updates and the necessary
description in abstract and introduction of these updates. 

Cheers

Magnus

On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 15:13 +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> > On 17. Feb 2020, at 14:44, Magnus Westerlund <
> > magnus.westerlund=[email-masked]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> >  
> > WG’s view on this? 
-- 
Cheers

Magnus Westerlund 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Networks, Ericsson Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Tom Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 15:36:49 +0000

> description in abstract and introduction of these updates. 

Hi Magnus,

We have posted a new rev that adds the updates lines and fixes the
reference to the quic draft (-27!)

- Tom